What just happened? Another incident has taken place that illustrates the need to be careful what you tell AI. A Florida woman is facing felony charges after she used Claude as a diary and allegedly wrote that she planned to "shoot up" the Sheriff's office. After a human reviewer examined the statements, they were reported to police.

According to the arrest report, Carli Michelle Heller, of Bonita Springs, Florida, wrote on September 26 that she would attack the Sheriff's office. She later said that she uses Anthropic's chatbot like a "diary."

Claude's safety systems flagged the entry and it was escalated to a human reviewer. After deciding it was a credible threat, the reviewer reported it to law enforcement.

The company says it may share user information in limited emergencies if it believes disclosure is necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

Deputies identified Heller and visited her home. She was detained without incident before an LCSO intelligence detective took over the investigation.

Heller faces a charge of making a written threat of violence under Florida law. Florida Statute 836.10 makes it a second-degree felony to send, post, or transmit a written or electronic record threatening to kill or injure someone, carry out a mass shooting, or commit an act of terrorism. The communication must be made in a manner in which another person may view it.

Anthropic isn't going to be taking any chances when it comes to anything it deems a potential threat. Last month, it was reported that OpenAI and Sam Altman are being sued by British Columbia over claims that the company could have prevented a mass shooting in the Canadian province.

The shooter, eighteen-year-old former pupil Jesse Van ⁠Rootselaar, had previously been flagged by OpenAI's safety team for her conversations about gun violence, but OpenAI never alerted police because the conversations did not meet the threshold for legal referral.

In June, Florida also sued OpenAI and Altman, alleging that ChatGPT had contributed to real-world harms, including the 2025 Florida State University shooting.

The latest incident is another reminder to think before you enter something into a chatbot that could get you into trouble. It's certainly not a private diary whose contents are for your eyes only.

Reports last month revealed that human contractors reviewing Microsoft Copilot's image editor can see users' prompts, uploaded photos and AI-generated edits. Documents show that some of those assignments contain sexual, disturbing or potentially illegal material, though the reviewers are not there to flag the content – only to assess whether the output is accurate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 72 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

"The company says it may share user information in limited emergencies if it believes disclosure is necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury."

Also keep in mind: Your chat logs are company assets. Even if today's decision makers believe maintaining user trust is net profitable, that will not always be true. Some day, maybe when the pullback comes and the wolves are at the gates, or when they sell the company, or when a shareholder action asserts fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, your chat logs will be sold and mined in the most lucrative way possible. The way that extracts the most value from you, the product.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (5 children)

    when a shareholder action asserts fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value

    People really should stop spreading this fiction that there is some legal requirement to maximize shareholder profits embedded in the concept of fiduciary duty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    There's no law but there is precedent isn't there?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

    No good or regularly cited precedent, no, but sadly yes you can point to some cases. It's worth noting that that even the courts look at those cases like "ew", or they are only viewed as valid precedent to lay people, with the courts view them completely differently. Dodge v Ford is a common example.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    Care to elaborate? (Or point to where one can learn more about this?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

    There isn't too much more to elaborate on, it simply isn't the case, but it is such a common thing to say that it is worth researching. You'll hear the 1919 case "Dodge v Ford" brought up as proof, one good place to start reading is the Wikipedia "Significance" section and the associated citations, as they go deeper into the subject than just that single case.

    There simply is no interpretation of "fiduciary duty" that requires "maximization of shareholder value" outside of the misinformed lay person discussion of the subject.

    You can even just logically see why such an interpretation would be impossible: given N shareholders all with different interests and different financial situations, how do you even define "maximizing their value" and what time duration are you basing that off? Imagine how absurd the courts would be if such a statute did exist: you'd have people owning 1 share in a company suing the company because it did something that wasn't maximizing "value" as they define it.

    The reality is that the business judgement rule is case law and is often cited and is often used as defenses against such assertions.

  • source
  • parent